This Week in the Mercury

Playing with Fire

News

Playing with Fire

Code Changes Could Snuff Indoor Fire Dancing in Portland


Bollywood Star

Food and Drink

Bollywood Star

Elevating Portland's Indian Offerings



  |  

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Build Out South Waterfront (Finally) Gets Affordable Homes

Posted by Sarah Mirk on Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM

feature1.1-570.jpg
  • David Reamer
A deadline has been announced.

Construction on an affordable housing complex in South Waterfront will begin in November 2010, after 10 years of urban renewal money building the district, affordable housing projects falling through and promises of a mixed-income, diverse neighborhood seeming more and more like fantasy.

As I wrote about last month in the piece "We Built This City", South Waterfront's urban renewal dollars have built hundreds of units of luxury condo housing, but zero affordable housing units. When it was planned, the district was supposed to have 788 units of subsidized housing available to people who make under Portland's median family income.

Earlier this year, the city gave up on building 400 units at Block 33, pulling out its plans at a financial loss and reorienting to focus on building units at Block 49 instead. Now, Portland Housing Bureau has announced, Block 49 is finally underway.

The $49.8 million building will include 208 units of housing affordable for Portlanders making less than 60 percent of Portland's median family income (about $619 for a studio to $776 for a two bedroom) and 42 studios reserved for veterans, who will pay no more than a third of their income to in rent. Its construction will be financed through a mix of tax increment financing dollars and $7.57 million in bonds.

I hope it actually gets off the ground. It's especially important to target vets for these kinds of projects, though 42 studios is such a drop in the bucket when you look at homeless veteran rates. Anyway, More details on the project here.

 

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I am glad to hear this, but I renew my objection to the meaningless term, "affordable housing."

Because you care, that's why.
Posted by Commenty Colin on May 25, 2010 at 4:54 PM · Report
2
Why isn't this affordable, CC? It is reserved for people that make 60% or less than median family income. This isn't the dreaded "work force" housing that can mean whatever it wants to developers. This is regulated, real affordable housing. The veteran housing is an even better deal...albeit not very much of it.
Posted by ben on May 25, 2010 at 6:23 PM · Report
3
@ ben: I'm all for lower income housing, or whatever equivalent euphemism you wish to use. However, "affordable" is a relative word, obviously. Using it's ordinary, relative definition, nearly every person lives in "affordable" housing, i.e. housing that is affordable to them.

I'm not insisting on some judgmental or degrading term, just something a little more accurate, whose meaning is a little easier to grasp.

This is the first time I've seen the phrase fleshed out, for example, and I was glad to see it, but until now, I had no real idea what Sarah meant when she repeatedly said, "affordable housing."
Posted by Commenty Colin on May 25, 2010 at 6:30 PM · Report
4
Anyone making minimum wage would still not be able to afford to live here.
Posted by loe on May 25, 2010 at 8:23 PM · Report
5
They kinda forgot the 30% median family income again, didn't they? They keep tearing 'em out and putting people on the street,(The Grove becoming a youth hostel), and forget to put em back. Surprise!!!
Posted by Dale Hardway on May 25, 2010 at 9:22 PM · Report
6
Great, tax productive citizens to subsidize waterfront skyrise housing for those that don't earn enough to afford the luxury in a city that has plenty of apartments in that price range.
Posted by Hoppy on May 25, 2010 at 10:25 PM · Report
7
@ Commenty Colin, I agree. @ Sarah Mirk please use correct spelling and punctuation, especially on the opening sentence of your article. It's not just you either, a lot of Mercury writers are culpable as well, and it takes away from your credibility. Not being snobby, just keepin' it real.
Posted by lifer12 on May 25, 2010 at 11:18 PM · Report
8
Hoppy, you are misinformed. The new housing is neither "skyrise", nor waterfront. It is 6 stories and closer to the highway than the water. Additionally, there is a convincing amount of evidence that there is not enough apartments in that price range in the inner city.
Posted by ben on May 26, 2010 at 8:05 AM · Report
9
"construction will be financed through a mix of tax increment financing dollars and $7.57 million in bonds"

Do us a solid and explain the difference between TIF dollars and bonds.
Posted by GLV on May 26, 2010 at 8:05 AM · Report
10
I agree about the term "affordable housing". It's as dumb as "organic" or "new and improved". This is "low income housing". My guess is someone politically corrected it along the way in an attempt to be sensitive.

I still don't understand why prime real estate is being subsidized like this. It seems like the potential tax revenue from this area would do more good.
Posted by Suburban Porn King on May 26, 2010 at 8:31 AM · Report
11
1. lifer12, calling out the Mercury for spelling/grammatical mistakes is like calling out Toyota for building cars that pollute.

2. The difference between "low income housing" and "affordable housing" is that not everyone has an income. Affordable is a relative term, yes, but relative in the opposite way of that you assume. Affordable, in the context of affordable housing, means affordable for all. The idea is that everyone should be able to afford housing. To call it "low income housing" disqualifies people in school, unemployed mothers getting out of abusive situations, etc.

Posted by Bronch O'Humphrey on May 26, 2010 at 8:49 AM · Report
12
Can they please make it a requirement that any housing comes with the understanding that smokers are not allowed? The low-income housing near my house has smokers outside leaving their shit in the street.
Posted by NIG GER on May 26, 2010 at 11:03 AM · Report
13
@ Bronch : now we get to niggle over the word income! Yay. Unless they are penniless street folk, they have an income of some sort to be living there. "Income" doesn't just refer to money obtained from work, but from any source (student loans, gov't benefits, etc).

I'm not arguing that "low-income" is much better, or that it isn't a damagingly pejorative term, just that it's better than the completely relative term, "affordable."

Also, I'd be pissed if we were subsidizing fancy waterfront apartments for students.
Posted by Commenty Colin on May 26, 2010 at 12:22 PM · Report
14
But it is better to permanently subsidize high end housing in the Pearl, south Waterfront and other places, right? For an example, compare the real estate tax paid in one of these developments as opposed to right across the river, that will give you a small reality check. BTW, those taxes will NEVER catch up.
Posted by Dale Hardway on May 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM · Report

Add a comment

Our Friends

Our Enemies

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.go


post an ad

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use